According to Andrew MacGregor Marshall, “[w]hen it finally came, King Bhumibol’s tragic fall from grace was swift and savage”. You can read all about it here. Previous New Mandala coverage of adjacent subject matter is available here, here, here and here.

Share this:

80 Comments

“Bhumibol’s tragic fall from grace was swift and savage”….
“over the four years that followed, the reckless behaviour of Thailand’s royalist elite brought the palace, and the country, to the brink of catastrophe.”

Starts with two hard to substantiate statements. Bhumibol has been almost non compos mentis for a decade and his “state of grace” has hardly changed. Just because more people speak out about the palace, and the lese majeste laws is now severely enforced, doesn’t mean Bhumibol has fallen from grace. Indeed, Andrew himself like many other has cited the king’s ostensible criticism of the LM law a few years ago as an argument that “the king himself” doesn’t like what is going on. That doesn’t sound like a fall from grace. The king’s image remains pretty solid whatever the red-yellow battles.

Secondly, isn’t it Thaksin and his red shirts who challenged the status qu0 (which was the palace-army deal to manage things the way they want). Obviously the yellow shirts will argue that it was the reds’ “reckless behaviour” that “brought the country to the brink of catastrophe.” The confrontation of both sides nearly wrecked the country; and it comes from a deep division over the future. Saying the palace nearly wrecked it alone is absurd.

Rather than go into a line by line rebuttal of Andrew’s rather remarkable rant, I think just two excerpts show how one sided his writing continue to be.

After going on and on about the supposed ideology of the TRT he writes one line about the Northern and Northeastern factions that make up Thaksin’s core support and his ability gain electoral majorities:But Thaksin made ample use of old-style Thai politicking techniques too, in particular the practice of bribing floating factions of MPs to join his camp.

But for the Democrats he says:It was mostly made up of cynical operators with no particular ideology, and its political survival depended on maintaining dominance in regions of southern Thailand where Democrat-aligned families had established a longstanding grip on power.

Isn’t the statement about the Democrats the just as, and maybe more, applicable to the TRT/PPP/PTP? Considering the number of parliamentary seats in the 2 regions isn’t the problem of “cynical operators with no particular ideology” even more prevalent in the North and NE?

Without the support of the northeastern provincial godfathers (his own family controls the Northern factions), Thaksin would not be a factor in any election. Does anyone think that support is based on an ideology of helping the poor people?

Dear “John Smith”. Many congratulations for noticing that my article is unfavourable to Thaksin Shinawatra. That’s not a hidden contradiction in my argument: I say it very openly throughout Part V of “The Tragedy of King Bhumibol”. And yet you regard my article as “one sided”. It seems to me that it’s you who is unable to comprehend any analysis of Thai politics that is critical of both Thaksin and his royalist foes.

I read parts 1-3 and then simply got tired. For the already initiated a rehash of what you or someone else has already written elsewhere is tedious. And to read “to be continued” was horrifying.

You need an editor to cut this down to 25% of where it is. Be succinct and original. Bring something new to the table. You have scans of original documents where you should simply link to them as a further reference after a brief summation/analysis by you (if there is something new). Stop lifting directly so much as it’s amateurish. Make sense of such material for your reader succinctly and get to the point and then move on.

Not that your work doesn’t have some good points.

Often we Westerners think that the sky is going to fall down here in Thailand because of our pulling the curtain back on some deep, dark secret only to discover that we in fact are simply scratching the surface of a very big iceberg of gossip and intrigue that most Thais absorb in the process of childbirth. The King accidentally killed his brother? Who gives a sh*t. Bumiphol isn’t a democrat? Who cares? He’s a King after all. Royalist factions? Military factions? The son doinking flight attendants? Thais have heard much worse.

Thais have been drinking from the chalice of gossip and intrigue for centuries.

What I did find important in the first three chapters and I feel worthy of a much more systematic study, is the writing out of Pridi in the national consciousness and his rejection by Royalists and R. IX. This is has been disgraceful and shameful. You want to get noticed? Bang on about that.

If anyone else has read IV and V and can say that they are worth reading to someone already familiar with the major events of Thai history speak up.

Thanks for your input “Joel”. Just for your information, the title “Thailand’s Moment of Truth” came from a U.S. cable, 08BANGKOK3289, which said:

“The battle lines in Thailand’s political environment are clearly drawn… The Thaksin machine faces off against a mix of royalists, Bangkok middle class, and southerners, with Queen Sirikit having emerged as their champion, as King Bhumibol largely fades from an active role…. They are positioning themselves for what key actors on both sides freely admit to us in private will be Thailand’s moment of truth — royal succession after the King passes away.”

I’m sure you can provide some evidence for your assertion that I have repeatedly claimed that my work will transform Thailand, particularly as you say I have made this claim “ad infinitum”.

Your helpful suggestions about how I should write and how I should behave on Facebook, and the suggestions of everybody else on this thread, might be more credible if you even had the courage to identify yourselves by your real names. If you can’t even do that, why should anybody bother to listen to what you have to say?

One more thing to add, “Joel”: I have only ever censored the comments of two people from my blog. One was the notoriously crazy Tony Cartalucci and the other is a strange character who calls himself Gary Joseph Chandler and who is trying to promote what he calls “The Joseph Solution to Save Thailand”. Both are nutcases, which is why I censored them. Which one of them are you?

Your shrillness when responding to any critical comment is very revealing.

I am neither of the “nutcases” you refer to here but most certainly did leave critical comments on your blog which never appeared. I assumed (and given your overbearing reaction here that assumption wasn’t misplaced) that you didn’t take criticism well.

To be completely frank I don’t really care what you do, what you write and what you do or don’t do on your Facebook page. All I would say is that if you do position yourself as part of a public discourse that you should expect some fair comment and criticism from the public. On the face of it you do seem a bit pathological in your responses so rather than get in the kind of unedifying and prolonged and abusive exchanges you seem so fond of on your twitter timeline I’ll bow out now and leave you to it.

Maratjp: The King accidentally killed his brother? Who gives a sh*t[?]

Quite a few people it seems. There has been 60 years of cover-up (if it is indeed true).

Wonder what the families of those executed for something they didn’t do feel?

Wasn’t Da Torpedo making this point when she was LM’ed?

Presumably not just Pridi was a political victim either as this event eventually led to the obliteration of the pro-Pridi faction of the People’s Party.

Maratjp: Bumiphol isn’t a democrat? Who cares?

Perhaps all the royalists and good bureaucrats who have spent decades (and investing tons of state funds) spinning a yarn that he is a democrat, that he protects democracy in Thailand and that monarchy defines Thai-style democracy, with the king as head of state.

There is the official version and then there is what Thai people believe and more often than naught they do not meet. Give Thai people more credit than this everyone. Thais look at this king as a father figure. This relationship is primarily a familial one; an emotional one. Like any family with the very, very deep bond of love, family atrocities or nasty mistakes and sins are forgiven and either forgotten or simply kept under the rug. Such is life and get on with it and stop dwelling on it. We are all sinners, we are a family, we love him. Move on.

And yes, part of it is simply blocking it all out. Thailand is a big family and he is the Father. And if he did indeed do such a thing he was a child and it was a mistake so he had to bear this and we should forgive him anyway.

He’s been a very good King, all we could ever hope for and we are proud of him and love him like our own father. It’s over and don’t bring it up.

This is what I feel most Thais would feel about this. This is why I say “who gives a sh*t.”

If indeed it is true, yes, it’s an atrocity that three people were basically murdered for this. But we don’t know do we? We speculate. AMM speculates and then accuses.

Da Torpedo: She was a thankless, big mouth, ignorant daughter with a bull horn broadcasting either a family secret or a nasty accusation about Father. Not a good idea in this family we call Thailand.

As I have mentioned before, it has been a tragedy what has happened to Pridi. He was scapegoated and he was a good man. Discussing the monarchy in Thailand is such a sensitive thing. And it’s difficult to discuss the King of Thailand fairly, we have blind obedience on one hand, idiots writing absolute sh*t on web boards just being disrespectful on the other hand. I do feel he is a good man and over the long shadow of history he has been a positive influence on Thailand. Having said that I would say that one of his greatest mistakes was not pardoning Pridi and allowing him to return to Thailand. No one is perfect.

Democracy: who cares?: Royalists have never believed in democracy, I know, I’ve heard many admit as much to me. No news here.

AMM: There are a few things I like more than someone who has spent a mere two years in Thailand and then has the audacity to think he can lecture to the world and more importantly to Thai people about such a complex culture, and not be open to criticism.

What arrogance. I would never do such a thing.

You are bringing up the facts of of Rama VIII’s death and dragging the current king into the gutter to make a name for yourself, to be controversial, to seek profit at his expense; it’s exploitive and mean.

Your comment #11 was a work of comic genius, albeit unintentionally so.

First you shared with us your nuanced and insightful understanding of what Thais think: “Thais look at this king as a father figure. This relationship is primarily a familial one; an emotional one. Like any family with the very, very deep bond of love, family atrocities or nasty mistakes and sins are forgiven and either forgotten or simply kept under the rug. Such is life and get on with it and stop dwelling on it. We are all sinners, we are a family, we love him. Move on.”

Then you criticize my audacity for thinking I can “lecture to the world and more importantly to Thai people about such a complex culture”.

Then you end with the punchline: “What arrogance. I would never do such a thing.”

Thank you for brightening my Sunday morning with your surrealist humour. Have a nice day.

I don’t claim to be the voice of all Thais. I am simply giving my opinion, my perspective, and admitting as much.

Nganadeeleg:

AMM’s accusing the king of killing his brother and then adopting a narrative style assuming this this is a foregone conclusion is irresponsible and disrespectful. The simple fact is that no one knows. Does evidence point in a certain direction? Fine, if this is your argument, but the case remains unsolved. AMM accuses to be controversial, to get noticed. To shock. He’s trying to be the story instead of being a proper journalist.

I said as much about Handley’s book with going to the gutter with personal issues regarding the royal family. It diminished an otherwise excellent and much needed book.

The problem is that AMM is so incredibly arrogant that he won’t heed any advice, because with his two years in Thailand and no standing as a scholar of Thai studies or related field, he has all the answers and is above criticism.

Tom Hoy: His page being blocked notwithstanding, most Thais (in my opinion) simply dismiss his more outrageous comments, at best, thoughts of a farang who doesn’t understand Thai culture, at worst, some farang keenok looking for notoriety.

AMM, I know you may think I’m just picking on you, but you are the one who elevated yourself quoting Lear, quitting your job at Reuters, and announcing to the world that you were going to liberate all of us with the keys to the Kingdom with top secret cables from wikileaks. We all waited to be transformed, waited to hear about that secret cable about Rama VIII’s misfortune or any other piece of information that would cause the sky to drop.

Is there anything new that you have brought to us of any significance that would warrant such claims of self importance?

I’m so sorry to offend you by my arrogance in having the temerity to resign from Reuters because I wanted to write in an honest way about Thailand. And sincere apologies too for going to the disgraceful lengths of quoting from King Lear. How outrageous of me.

It never crossed my mind that writing #thaistory and “The Tragedy of King Bhumibol” would bring about some sudden revolution in Thailand, and I have never claimed that it would. I just did it because I thought it was the right thing to do, and because I hope it will do some good. You may disagree with me, and that’s fine, but there are plenty of people who disagree with you and who find my work useful. And that’s enough for me.

I am happy to listen to advice and I have no problem with criticism: if I was afraid of criticism I obviously would not have embarked on the path I have chosen. But I don’t see anything worth listening to in the advice you have so graciously offered me so far, and I don’t think your criticisms are credible or valid: on the contrary, I consider them ignorant and hypocritical. And if people want to offer criticism, they should be prepared to be criticised in turn.

I’m glad that you have at least acknowledged that the Thai royalists have never believed in democracy, and that the royal family is responsible for several atrocities. You may not give a “sh*t” about that. But I do. And I know for a fact that many Thais are concerned about such things too.

I believe in doing my best to report the truth. I don’t believe in taking refuge in fairy tales. When I think something is a pile of shit, I say so, without the ridiculous asterisk. That’s my choice. People can choose to read what I write, or they can choose to ignore it. When people like you react with theatrical outrage, I take that as evidence that I must be doing something right.

“It was an extraordinary moment, utterly unthinkable until it suddenly happened. In the most public of places, right in the centre of the capital, hundreds of Thais were openly calling their king a murderous bastard.”

How did you know they were referring to the king? I was there that evening with a bunch of red-shirt friends and I thought we were referring to Abhisit and “you know who”, but definitely not the king.

The chant which I have loosely translated as “the bastard ordered the killing” has since been modified to include a second element, which can be loosely translated as “The bitch ordered the shooting”. I don’t think there is any serious doubt about which two individuals are being referred to here. You can find extensive discussion of the issue at this New Mandala post: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/07/05/who-ordered-the-killing/

I can’t think of one respected or reputable journalist who spends as much time and effort as AMM spewing his bile on webboards at those who disagree or express criticisms or reservations concerning his published/posted work. It does even more to discredit his work then the obvious flaws within the work itself.

The work itself would qualify AMM as the Andrew Breitbart of Thai political commentary. But the relentless need to respond to every critic with an aplty described “sneering” and insult-laden comeback puts him in the same class as Rush Limbaugh.

Keep up the good work Andrew.They will keep coming for you and criticising your work no matter what,because you are out of their reach and they can’t lock you up,.The best your distractors can do is try to insult you.Stick two fingers up at them,and carry on.

Should also be said that why is it that anyone who dares criticize him is always considered either a nutter or part of the Thai state?

Marshall’s work is … well… average. I agree with the basic thrust of his position but I can’t find much new in it or which hasn’t been said before. It isn’t scholarly, it isn’t journalism, it isn’t publishable and it’s too long to consume as a blog and too overbearing to attract a new readership. Even if you do spend hours reading it you leave with the impression those were wasted hours. Particularly if you’ve already read other stuff published years ago.

I just don’t get why Marshall attracts so much attention. He is good at self-promotion, I’ll give him that, but there’s not much else to warrant my time I’m afraid.

Also why did NM publish a link to Marshall’s month old work? Most people coming here would’ve already seen it. Or have NM also succumbed to the self-promotion?

“How did you know they were referring to the king? I was there that evening with a bunch of red-shirt friends and I thought we were referring to Abhisit and “you know who”, but definitely not the king.”

At the same afternoon/evening also dozens if not hundreds of graffiti insulting the king and the queen were scribbled at the plastic covering of the central world construction site fence (the were gone immediately after the protesters went home). Many Red Shirts photographed them on their mobile phones and SMS’ed the imaged to friends at home.
The chants were repeated at every gathering afterwards, until Tida Tawornset became acting UDD chairwoman in early December 2010, and who held tedious negotiations with grass roots Red Shirt groups asking them to get their people to tone down the expression of these radical views, making also enemies in her own camp along the way.
I have had many chats with Red Shirts during the protests, especially whom they meant when chanting. It was not Abhisit. The second part of the chant that Andrew mentioned, makes things a lot more clear.

“Maratjp”:

“There is the official version and then there is what Thai people believe and more often than naught they do not meet. Give Thai people more credit than this everyone. Thais look at this king as a father figure. This relationship is primarily a familial one; an emotional one. Like any family with the very, very deep bond of love, family atrocities or nasty mistakes and sins are forgiven and either forgotten or simply kept under the rug. Such is life and get on with it and stop dwelling on it. We are all sinners, we are a family, we love him. Move on.”

This view may still be the majority view, but dissenting views not just under the educated left, but especially under Red Shirts in rural communities and urban labor class neighborhoods are rising rapidly. I would suggest to travel through some of the Red Shirt heartlands, gain these people’s trust, and listen what they say about this subject matter.
It is high time that the elites of both sides – the military, the opposition, and the non-Red Shirt elites of the government begin to consider what the grassroots political activists in this country feel, and how large their support is. These views cannot be expressed in the open, but they are nonetheless very strong. There will not be any lasting “reconciliation” in Thai society as long as these issues are not addressed as well.
The TRCT in its latest interim report has addressed this issue quite strongly, but as in previous reports, their suggestions will most likely be ignored again.

The by you here expressed view, under the cloak of “not being the official version”, is nothing but the “unofficial” official version on how Thai people supposedly think, and propagated by people far removed from common people. In daily reality though this is a increasingly challenged view – not by me, as i am just reporting/researching/photographing – but by more and more Thais, who may today still seem a minority (yet not tiny anymore), but, if you take the history of many European countries into account, could quite easily develop into a majority at some point in the future.
Thailand’s isn’t that different from how many European countries once were.

One consistent thread of the criticism of both Handley and Marshall is that they aren’t saying anything new, that everyone knows everything they’re saying anyway, and that they’re retailing rumor and scuttlebutt.

Well maybe so although I wouldn’t know as I’m one of those who doesn’t know everything. But the big difference between them and their mostly anonymous critics is that they have been prepared to put their names and reputations behind what they say.

I have become so tired of everyone, including many of the Bangkok middle class who told me that the Red Shirts were not loyal to the king and that they were disrespectful to the king etc. I always wanted evidence. I always wanted to see the writing, the graffiti, hear a speech. Such evidence has been very difficult to come by.

Nick, what exactly were these “insults” in this graffiti?

This chanting at the protests I assumed when I first read about it was against Abhisit or Prem or at worst, the queen.

I have been to the provinces and I’ll be heading out again this week to discuss opinions about Thailand. I’ve spoken to a wide range of Thais across the political spectrum over the years from PAD types to standard middle class to red shirts, educated and uneducated. It’s been interesting to say the least.

I don’t get into many discussions about the monarchy because it’s such a sensitive issue. But there have been a few experiences that have been quite telling. I once asked a taxi cab driver what he thought about the king. I asked him only because you yourself had mentioned how things were changing on some post. I’ll never forget it. He looks at me in the rear view mirror and asks with a cold suspicion, “What king?”

“The current one,” I answered.
“I don’t have an opinion,” he answered, but the look he gave me sent a cold shiver through my spine. I had transgressed into an area that I had no business getting into.

Another time I made a statement about the politics of the protests to the mother of a friend of mine as she was cutting rice in a field up in Isan. She responded matter of factly not even looking up, “Farangs don’t understand the monarchy,” as she continued to work.

At one of the Red Shirt protests this middle aged farmer with leathery skin yell to me that they needed the king to protect them from the generals.

I’ve been in barber shops where red shirt regalia was everywhere with Jatuporn singing karaoke between speeches on TV and everywhere on the walls were pictures of all the kings.

The king here in Thailand is the highest of high and will not be touched. For the most part this is what I have heard and felt all the time I have been here. Reform of the monarchy? Sure. Even among the middle class there is much support for this, with yellow shirts too. And this is good news.

It’s my belief that this concept of a virtuous king presiding over Thailand is not only central to who the Thai people are, but something they love, and most importantly need. This society is based on higher and lower and most Thais believe that everything would simply be better with a sacred person at the very top.

Thailand is not Europe. We’re talking about vastly different universes in my opinion.

Just my impressions and certainly would never think I speak for all Thais. Just would I have seen and heard. And I remain open to change as always. And no bias here because I come from a nation with no monarchy at all.

look, most thais, including red shirts don’t care if the king killed his brother or not and that isn’t the source of the present anger against the monarchy.

that anger stems from the queen backing the PAD and from the king’s complete ambivalence when the thai army was shooting people in 2010.

did bhumibol kill his brother? impossible to prove either way and even if it were proved it is highly unlikely it was murder (the three who were hung later is a different matter and those deaths must be construed as the most vile kind of state conspiracy).

did the thai army kill people in 2010? without any hesitation the answer is yes, with most of that very likely to be murder.

the thai people know their priorities. shame andrew marshall and new mandala are at cross purposes with that.

They were quite shocking. Repeating the content though would break the laws.

Thailand’s social and political landscape is changing rapidly. This change though is naturally not yet reflected in any media, even not in Red Shirt medias.
I do not shy away from the subject of the monarchy when i discuss Thai politics. The subject may be sensitive, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot and should not be discussed. How can i find out the feelings of people towards their monarchy when i am to0 scared to discuss the subject with them?

And regarding European history – i do find that many speeches on Red Shirt stages reflect aspirations and demands that are quite similar to the demands in Europe in the different revolutionary/reformist movements such as the 1848 revolutions and similar. And much of the argumentation against these demands are again quite similar to how the establishment then in Europe defined itself against these revolutionary/reformist movements.

Marathon @30: ‘Nick, what exactly were these “insults” in this graffiti?’

I remember this very well, as there were photos of the graffiti online when it occurred. It was, as Nick said, on the construction barrier at Central World. I don’t remember special words, but it was clearly insults.

“I have become so tired of everyone, including many of the Bangkok middle class who told me that the Red Shirts were not loyal to the king and that they were disrespectful to the king etc.”

You should not have asked them for “evidence” but inquire why the Red Shirts’ alledged lack of loyalty and respect were deemed to be issues at all. To put it another way, why was it that the Red Shirts were supposed to be loyal and respectful to the king?

“It’s my belief that this concept of a virtuous king presiding over Thailand is not only central to who the Thai people are, but something they love, and most importantly need.” Which begs the question of how this piece of official propaganda has found its way into the mental set-up of a Westener from a country that does not have a king.

“…why was it that the Red Shirts were supposed to be loyal and respectful to the king?”

Because it’s Thailand and the powers that be say that you should or else you can enjoy cracked red bean soup with a hole in the ground to relieve yourself in a cell with 50 other undesirables.

“Which begs the question of how this piece of official propaganda has found its way into the mental set-up of a Westener from a country that does not have a king.”

My point is that it’s not all propaganda. This has been my great discovery, despite myself. I went down to Sanam Luang today and I just marveled at how Thai people (not all, but dare I say majority?) just love it. The uniforms and medals, the grandeur, the solemnity, the rituals. They just can’t get enough of it it seems.

That I have come to think this way is sort of ridiculous when I think about it. But don’t confuse where I think many Thais are coming from with what I believe about power, nation, and citizenship. What I believe from my own tradition and culture is the opposite of what I have come to see in Thai culture regarding monarchy (not all Thais!).

I guess it’s why I love studying it so much. It’s just the absolute antithesis of what I believe. So no, all the monarchist propaganda in the world, despite what I have written about what I believe most Thais believe (or a hell of a lot of them), would never change my views about freedom and democracy. What it has done is made me appreciate on a much deeper level the ideals on which my nation was founded.

Speaking of democracy, wouldn’t it be interesting to start a campaign to have a People’s Funeral, much like the one today for Princess Bejaratana, along with the 200 million baht from the government, for Pridi Phanomyong?

“Speaking of democracy, wouldn’t it be interesting to start a campaign to have a People’s Funeral, much like the one today for Princess Bejaratana, along with the 200 million baht from the government, for Pridi Phanomyong?”

On a smaller scale than you suggest, but nevertheless rather provocative to the establishment, you have had at least one “people’s funeral” at Wat Damlu in Samut Prakan province on September 11, 2011, for Vasan Putong (the man with the flag) who was killed on April 10, 2010. His corpse was laid on a very elaborate 7 tier pagoda before being cremated. The funeral was attended by thousands maybe ten thousand Red Shirts, or more.

Naturally when you go to Sanam Luang to a royal event, you will see as you described. But to see the other side of the coin, you will have to go to other places and events (at least since Sanam Luang has been closed to political protest events).

“It’s my belief that this concept of a virtuous king presiding over Thailand is not only central to who the Thai people are, but something they love, and most importantly need. This society is based on higher and lower and most Thais believe that everything would simply be better with a sacred person at the very top.”
================
After watching all 10 Thai channels broadcast the endless, Las Vegas glitz, totally lame “reality tv show” of the previously unknown “Princess” funeral/cremation, I find all this pretend “devotion” and “solemnity” hard to believe. It’s more like an episode from “Survivor” where the contestant who wins is the one who can stay awake, at least keep their eyes open, the longest. Even the most ardent royalists at the event were having a hard time not nodding off as the assembled servants plodded around on their knees and prostrated themselves endlessly before the “sacred” high persons.

Good grief…..time for the Thai royalists to wake up and smell the bacon……..their over-produced and wildly over-budget show is over.

Just keep in mind two things. First, the time dimension, that is, the decades of indoctrination from early childhood onwards, in the absence of the promotion of an alternative state model. Surely, this would affect a number of people. So, no suprise here that you saw people who just loved the whole funeral thing.

Second, those people who did turn out to the funeral, in terms of numbers, are nothing compared to those who stayed at home. I even know Thai people who are strictly against this royalist show of pomp, but nevertheless watched part of it on TV (even I myself watched it, though only for the duration of having my lunch in a small shop that had turned on the TV).

Even in provincial Thailand, celebrations of the king’s birthday are events for the officials. As state functionaries, they must perform their celebratory duties. What they think is another story. But, surely, you will hardly meet any ordinary citizens at such events.

With some embarassment, I admit that, when I was about thirteen years old, I willingly joined my class and waited at the roadside to wave at Queen Elizabeth when she drove by in an open car. These days, there are not many republican westeners who would want to have their monarchies back. But a number of them still fall for any good show, be it a royal funeral, a royal wedding (Kate is soooo cute), a concert of Madonna, or the opening ceremony of the Olympic games.

@Gunther wrote:
“Good grief…..time for the Thai royalists to wake up and smell the bacon……..their over-produced and wildly over-budget show is over.”

Please, don’t make it over yet. Please wait until my beloved Princess Srirasmi become Queen of Thailand first. After my beloved Srirasmi is a Queen and all the Royalists have a chance to prostrate to her feet, then I don’t care what will happen…

I just marveled at how Thai people (not all, but dare I say majority?) just love it. The uniforms and medals, the grandeur, the solemnity, the rituals.

Surely, most of us (i.e. most people as opposed to just Thai people) are drawn to an unusually grand show – particularly if it’s free (albeit funded by the taxpayers). Can you really say for sure that many let alone most onlookers (as opposed to the serried ranks of invited/need-to-be-seen-there phu yai) were drawn to yesterday’s events by any sense of paying respect/homage to a departed princess? If not for the grandeur of the spectacle, how many do you think would have gone there? Given that it was a funeral, how many of those you saw there looked sad/upset as opposed to simply fascinated?

I’ve once attended the Trooping of the Colour on the Queen’s birthday in London – but then I’ve also been in Moscow’s Red Square for a mass military parade. Both occasions were hugely impressive but neither labels me a fan of what was being commemorated – any more than would be the case if I joined the Champs Elysee crowds on 14th July.

All of these events, with their spectacular pomp and circumstance, are very well calculated to produce a powerful effect. With all the massive resources deployed, small wonder that (to paraphrase) “if you stage it, they will come”.

After succession there’s going to be one hell of a battle for the soul of the Thai nation. A very big fight to define what exactly is Thai, who is Thai. And this is going to be something to watch. History repeats itself and Thailand is no different. There will be a passing of the old order just like there was during Chula’s early years and just like there was in 1932.

My sense now is that many of the Bangkok middle class and many of red shirts from the north are actually closer in beliefs. Still far apart many ways regarding culture and education, but similar in that they are wanting a more open system. That’s the good news.

The bad news is there are ultra royalists, and I’ve spoken to a few, who are back in the 18th century. And my prediction is that if this group digs in, Thailand is in for some serious problems in the not so distant future.

For a bit of rural reality – Since early Feb northern Thailand has had the most appalling and record breaking levels of Smoke-Haze pollution. So high that the levels in Chiang Rai were such that if the government rules were to have been invoked the province would have been evacuated. With all this one response has been http://www.facebook.com/BreatheCampaign & http://www.breathecampaign.net/ the only observed government reaction has been huge STOP BURNING posters in key urban places – not in the hills where the fires are of course. The vain governer of Chiang Mai has even managed to insinuate his photo into smaller posters around town and claims “severe” action is been taken.
Well yesterday just how severe the government response was could easily be seen. Along the road from Nan to Phrae corn field fires were raging a-plenty and not one police vehicle or army uniform was to be seen. Government offices were closed for the 4th day in succession as the most boring gold and red spectacle of chanting in a language we do not speak occupied officials attention.
Farmers had better (or worse considering the effects) things to do and the NM academics who have formerly shown some interest in how the land is mis-managed, like the officials, pretend nothing is happening beyond Sanam Luang.

In my opinion, which comes from talking with several Thais, the vast majority have no idea who this now-cremated princess was. She was overseas for decades after 1932, suffered unfortunate disabilities, and is only celebrated in death by the current royal household because, as PPT pointed out, she is the last royal of the pre-1932 generation.

Watching the funeral ritual on Thai tv, the large number of government officials as well as connected royals in attendance, I got the feeling that the whole event was not so much about the barely known princess who, after all, lived a fairly non-descript life, as it was a “rehearsal” for the Big Event to come.

Is there one soul of any nation? No. But is it worthy to discuss what the powers at be in any nation think is the soul of a nation? Yes. The recent banning of Shakespeare Must Die is about the soul of the nation. The ubiquitous presence of royal symbols is about the soul of the nation. This recent elaborate funeral is about the soul of the nation. The protests were also about the soul of a nation.

I feel it’s important to discuss what the officially sanctioned national narrative is. This story is tightly held by certain people. Most importantly what Thai students learn in history reflects what they are going to feel about the soul of their nation.

So Maratjp are you telling my that everyone suddenly wants to get rid of the monarchy? After your little trip to Isan? There is only 20 million of them there, even if they were all against the monarchy the monarchy still has plenty of support from the other area’s of Thailand. Except from the South or at least the Muslim parts of it. They just want to be an independent nation though, they don’t care if Thailand as a monarchy or not.

I think King B is a good man, even with all his flaws. I don’t know how popular the King is, but guess will find out when he dies or when he celebrates if 70th year of his reign if he even makes in that long. Either way I like him, he’s the only king ever born in America. Which is really weird when you think about it, he’s survived so much in his 66 years as King that he should survive the Red shirts, in the end when he dies history will judge him better than anyone else here has.

My opinion really doesn’t matter in the grand scam of things. But I will say they are in a pickle, but I don’t think it’s as bad as people are saying it is. The crown prince is a fool and a horrible person in my opinion. Yet I think he could still change and be a good king. After all Queen Victoria’s son was a horrible person and a unpopular crown prince. She stayed on the throne to her dying day because she dreaded the moment he would be king. Yet despite King Edwards brief reign, he manged to turn himself around and when he died he was very popular and the monarchy lived on.

As for the Queen she’s tried the help the people in the South out, the Buddhist one’s anyway. She may want to rule after the king dies, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. As for the king’s eldest daughter, she would be the perfect Queen, she’s popular and has a clean slate. The other princesses are not worth mentioning in my opinion, because they are not that important. They have no shot for the throne. As for the future of the monarchy, we just have to see what happens, I think things will stay the same until the king dies, after he dies anything could happen, but I think that when he dies succession will not be the nightmare everyone says it will be and that life will just go on. I guess I am an optimist. Still I think people like Mr. Marshall are really making this thing worse than it needs to be. King bhumibol has lived a tragic life, but I don’t think it’s been the complete waste he says it has been. also at this point does anyone care if he killed his brother or not , I don’t think he did though, but if I say that Mr. Marshall will bash me down and I don’t want that. Still why does he want to destroy King bhumibol ‘s reputation? Honestly what business does he have getting involved in the affairs of a country he’s not even from? I think the sanest thing for everyone to do is to sit back and just see how this play’s out. I’m just really upset that I’m the only one here sticking up for King Bhumibol, I guess I’m just helping out a fellow American. Sorry this reply was so long, I just had a lot on my mind. I also hope it answered your question.

Let me make one thing clear I have no desire for America to become a monarchy anymore than I have any desire for Thailand to become a republic. So I can’t imagine anyone being the king of America lest of all someone who doesn’t have any real attachment to it. I just think it’s interesting that one of the world’s most successful kings was born in America. It has a very interesting irony to it. I like king bhumibol for other reasons though, but I’m not going to bother to say them, since I feel that they would just be picked apart by all the haters.

I think everything written about king bhumibol is biased one way or another. People make him out to be almost god like figure or a evil loser and none of these are true. I look forward to the day when I read something about him that it just facts with no opinion attached. Once that happens Andrew Spooner, I think everyone will be better off.

Ricky I say his life’s tragic because of how it all turned out. I mean his brother who he loved dearly died, he became a estranged from his wife who he also loved and besides his eldest daughter he isn’t really close to any of his other children and I think he hates his son. By the looks of things he likes his dogs more than he likes people and his country is a mess and he has depression and a ton of other health problems. His life’s just never been that happy, he’s had happy moments but still he’s going to die sad and alone. That’s pretty tragic, also a lot of people say that his mind has started to leave him I believe that Polo said that he was non compos mentis he’s seen things go to hell and he probably doesn’t even understand why.

Regardless of the person he use to be he is just an old man now. The recently flooding of his home town just made his mood worse. After all the city he loved so deeply was flooded and he couldn’t do anything but watch. His life sucks, some of it’s his fault, but a lot of it’s not. I don’t think he’s ever enjoy being king. I could be wrong though, maybe he is happy. Still with a life like this I don’t see how that’s possible. The love of millions or ten millions is great, but I don’t think it makes up for having such a horrible family life.

Neo 99 wrote:
“in the end when he dies history will judge him better than anyone else here has.”

I wholeheartedly agree. When he dies, and Thais are no longer fanatical about him, and lese majeste is abolished (which means anyone who says the truth about his wrongdoing will no longer go to jail), then what he has done will be apparent to all.

But even with lese majeste currently in force, there are already bad things he had done which no one can hide. These include (but are not limited to):
1) jailing people who do not love him;
2) destroying democracy countless time by endorsing numerous military coups;
3) supported the massacre on 6 October 1976;
4) supported, or at least acquiesced to the alleged ‘Communists’ villagers during the 1980s;
5) supported, or at least acquiesced to the massacre on April-May 2010 carried out by the Royal Thai Army in which he is a commander;
6) acquiesced to his wife’s (the Queen) blatant interference (through her supporting the PAD) with democratically elected government; and
7) supported, or at least acquiesced to the witchhunting and political harassment carried on by the Royalists against people who do not love him

Only with these seven atrocious acts which he had done, I believe any reasonable and objective person would be able to conclude that he is definitely not a good person.

If anyone would like to prove me wrong I would love to hear your arguments.

Okay CT, let me try to address all your points. First of all, he’s never put anyone in jail, that’s no how that screwed up law works. The people put each other in jail, for supposedly insulting him. He most likely never gave this much thought, since before the coup there were only around five cases a year and I think most people didn’t serve the full sentences anyway. In 20o2 and there were none, at this point he’s so old and out of it, he doesn’t even know how bad it’s gotten. Although since 2011 the number of LM cases has dropped by a good amount.

Also I see no evidence that he supported that massacre. Then again, I hesitate to call that a massacre, since I read plenty of reports from reporters from my country who were there as it was happening. The Red shirts were firing grandees and other other bombs at them, before the soldiers even did anything. They damaged a lot of property and went on homophobic and xenophobic rants. They are not the saints that people make them out to be. They were given a golden offer from PM Abhisit Vejjajiva for him to resign in just a few months and for elections to be instantly held when that happened. If they had just said yes so much bloodshed could have been avoided.

Also the people of Bangkok gave these Red shirts no support, they just ignored them and went on with their lives. As for the King from what I understand he was partially on his death bed at this point. A frail old man, with more health problems than I can count. Sounds like a real villain. Honestly do you think he knew the full extent of what was going on, if he did he most likely would have had a heart attack and died. Also his Commander of Thai military rank is a purely ceremonial one, maybe at one time it wasn’t but not anymore. Also given how pissed off and scared the soldiers where, I don’t think they would have listen to anyone at that point. The Thai army is not that will trained and there handling of this situation shows that. In the end there is not a single real piece of evidence that he gave any real sort of kill order , he may not have not even known how many people got killed until this whole event was over and his health was better. Wither he supports the military’s decision, I have no idea and honestly I don’t care because I am sure there are a lot of people in Bangkok who support what the military did. I’ll address all your other points later when I have more time, but I will say that history is the best judge of all because it judges with just facts and without any bias. Which you seem to have a lot of , although I don’t see how anything the King’s done has made your life worse. In fact at this time everything is fine now and will remain that way as long as both the Yellow shirts and the Red Shirts don’t stage any major protests. Both of these groups are crazy and should bare the real blame for all that has happened.

One more thing, do you honestly think that King could rule over Thailand for 66 years and not develop some sort of love for the people. After being loved by so many of them so much? Unless he’s a sociopath,I don’t think that’s possible. Since he hasn’t given any of the signs of being one, just me I know those signs well. As I said before I will address your other points, but I am very tight on time so it may take a few days.

@Neo 99
>”First of all, he’s never put anyone in jail, that’s no how that screwed up law works. The people put each other in jail, for supposedly insulting him.”

-I am afraid you have to view the whole matter in a wider context. You are right that he did not personally put anyone in jail. However, it was him who gave assent to lese majeste law, isn’t it? Had he refused to sign, this vile law would never be in place. In my opinion, if you propagandalise yourself every day until people are ready to kill others who do not like you, then you assent to this vile law that allows anyone to report anyone who criticises you to be jailed, then that is akin to you jailing others yourself. If you think I am wrong I would love to hear your explanation.

“Also I see no evidence that he supported that massacre.”

-Again, you have to view the whole matter in a wider context. It would be impossible for the TV to televise him giving direct order to support it. You have to think, “who came out and kill the Red Shirts?” The answer is the “the Army”. Then you would have to ask yourself, then who has the power to stop the army from doing this? Who has the DUTY to stop the army from doing this? The answer….go read the Constitution, section 10, it states “the King is the commander of the Thai army”. So he is the person who is responsible, and is able, to stop this whole thing. And he chose not to do anything after he realised that his army is committing crimes against humanity. So I was correct that he supported, or at least acquiesced to the massacre.

“As for the King from what I understand he was partially on his death bed at this point. A frail old man, with more health problems than I can count. Sounds like a real villain. Honestly do you think he knew the full extent of what was going on, if he did he most likely would have had a heart attack and died.”

-Assuming that he is about to die like you said (which I disagree…but anyway), then have not you heard the word “abdication”? If he fully realises he cannot assume full responsibility, it is only responsible and correct that he gives his title to someone else who has the ability to do his job.

“Also his Commander of Thai military rank is a purely ceremonial one, maybe at one time it wasn’t but not anymore.”

-Where is your source? Any academic viewpoint to support this? If not, you have no right to make this assertion. Furthermore, I would like to ask you, assuming that what you said is really true, that if the King comes out and tell the Army to stop killing on TV, would they disobey him, given how influential he is in Thailand at the moment? The answer is likely to be no. If he really wants to stop, he can. But he didn’t.

“One more thing, do you honestly think that King could rule over Thailand for 66 years and not develop some sort of love for the people. After being loved by so many of them so much?”

-Well, Kim Jong Il had not really done many things positive about North Korea. But with daily propaganda and massive brainwashing, you still see ignorant North Koreans weeping when he dies. Have you been to Thailand? Have you ever seen the amount of propaganda on TV about King B? If you have seen it, you know why many Thais are still fanatical to him (fortunately I am not one of them).

I would not make comment about what the Red Shirts have done or what the Yellow Shirts have done. The only thing I would say to you is whatever they have done, the Army has NO RIGHT to shoot them down. So you can never try to BS your way through to justify the massacre. Because you can’t. Don’t even try. I only read your nonsensical, groundless justification for the army for the few sentences and I stopped reading when you said the Army was “so pissed off with the Red Shirts that they wouldn’t listen if anyone would try to stop them”. That is not a justification. Try arguing this point in the US Courts and the Judge is likely to tell you to stop talking, or the polite one may allow you to finish your speech, yet they do not take your speech into consideration anyway when they make the judgment. Because it is a blatant crimes against humanity. Nothing can justify it.

Neo 99: You seem to be contradicting HRH Princess Chulabhorn who said the King follows the news, is “attentive”, “gives orders” etc.
Also, both the current and previous PM’s are seen to have been “granted an audience” and to have been “given advice” by HMK.

Something just doesn’t add up, and until it does, it will be hard for people ‘not in the know’ to make any worthwhile judgement.

“One more thing, do you honestly think that King could rule over Thailand for 66 years and not develop some sort of love for the people.”

He might. Or he might think they are like his family and not be close to any of them and even hate some.

I also wonder about the “tragic life” – most of the tragedies appear to be of his own making. That he has reigned while the aura of the monarchy has been restored (for a time) and his CPB has accumulated oodles of assets and become horrendously wealthy may turn out to be his greatest “achievements.”

Nganadeeleg the king has met all past three prime minsters and those who came before them and given them all advice. What that advice is , is between him and them and it could be anything. Most likely it was something very right wing and high in Buddhist principles As for what his daughter said she could be telling the truth. Then again, Wikleaks has reveled that the king suffers from depression and Parkinson’s disease None of his kids have mentioned that. The recent floods did nothing to help with that, I think that she said what she said, to give supporters of the king the comfort that he was alright and still in the get go of things.

Then again as you said I am not in the know, none of us are. Still that hasn’t stopped people from making a lots of harsh judgements. I think that someone should write a nice factual account of the king’s reign without any bias or emotion attached to it , no one’s done that yet and until someone does, I feel that there will never be a true account of his reign or even who he really is. I think the king should have written a Autobiography about his life, when his mind was still whole. Instead of writing that really weird book about his dog. I think it would have been good for him to explain things from his point of view, it was a golden opportunity and he just let it pass by.

Neo 99 – Perhaps because it is banned in Siam you have not red the book , but I guess most NM folk have and I would agree with comments I have read that “The King Never Smiles” is a scholarly substantial biography. I felt that Handley was not particularly critical of HM. Perhaps if written after the Wikileaks revelations, thanks to Brad some say, it would have been more so.

If TKNS is so untruthful and the Thai government can prove that it is untrue, the avenues are open for them to sue Yale University Press for defamation anytime. But up until today, no one from the Thai Government ever filed a charge in the US Courts to sue Yale University for publishing this book yet. Don’t you think it is weird?

For me, if anyone writes a book about me, and the book contains so much lies and defamation which paints me in such a bad light from loads of untruthful information, and the Court in the country which publishes this book is independent and unbiased (such as the US Courts), I will do everything to sue the publisher of that book and squeeze every cent I can possibly get from them.

TKNS paints the K in a very bad light. It is published by Yale University Press, which definitely is a wealthy organisation that can afford to pay huge damages. The Court in the USA is among the most reputable and independent. They will not accept bribes from Yale University to make a ruling in its favour for sure.

….so why the Thai Government did not seek injunction for them to publish this book? And after the book has been distributed, why the Thai Government did not sue them for defamation?

The answer is…because they know they wouldn’t win. Because the information in that book…is true.

“The Red shirts were firing grandees and other other bombs at them, before the soldiers even did anything.”

Leaving aside what “grandees” may be in this context, this is a woeful rewriting of history. I suggest you check out an accurate timeline of the events of April 10 2010.

“Also the people of Bangkok gave these Red shirts no support, they just ignored them and went on with their lives.”

A substantial proportion of “these Red shirts” were/are Bangkok residents and, BTW, they also rate as “people” whatever their sympathies. You seem to have missed any reporting of the early stages of the protest – which included a mass “motorised rally” moving around central Bangkok that brought many people out of their homes, shops and offices to cheer the demonstrators on. Given that much of the Thai media had billed the protest as being just some kind of hick invasion by the upcountry “red hordes”, this inconvenient truth came as a rude shock to many – though not to the UDD.

Needless (I’d have thought) to say, there were also highly vocal counter-demonstrations by some “people of Bangkok”. All in all, your characterisation of a complex and evolving situation just doesn’t fit key facts.

You seem to think that there are easy “facts” about the king out there, and they would make him appear in a positive light. However, when it will be possible to go beyond Handley by producing a substantially documented critical analysis–that is, a scholarly–treatment of the person, his reign, and the monarchy, it might well be that nothing much will be left of his reputation (as much as it has been produced and protected by a relentless indoctrination and propaganda process).

From what I read from western media the people of Bangkok were highly indifferent to the red shirts. When the protests were going, they went to school, they went to work, they went to the movies. They went on with their lives, they pretended that these protests weren’t even happening.

There are Red shirts in Bangkok, but I don’t believe that the majority of the people in Bangkok are Red Shirts. There mostly middle class urban dwellers that have little in common with these rural people from Isan. That is where most of the Red Shirts came from and I’m tried of people looking at them as saints. They went on homophobic and xenophobic rants. They damaged a lot of property threaten people , turned away a perfectly good deal and tired to kill soldiers and policeman who weren’t doing anything to them. Some of the 91 people who died were definitely innocent, but I am sure that a good number of them needed to be put down before they killed people. Regardless I am just sick and tried of people thinking that the Red Shirts are saints that had no hand in what ended up happening to them.

I don’t think anyone here thinks the Red Shirts are saints, so I really don’t know why you feel so tired to hear people here saying that they are saints. FYI, I don’t thinl they are.

As for damaging the property, I still have doubts as to who burned CTW Building. Official media in Thailand claims the Red Shirts did it. But the photo album, appearing on Facebook, showing the inside of CTW before the building was burned clearly showed that the building had been occupied by the Army, and that a few Red Shirts in there were either injured, shot in the leg, incapable of walking.

However, it is certain that the Yello Shirts aka “PAD”, under the blatant support of Queen Sirikit, occupied the BKK airport and caused substantial losses to the Thai economy. I was in Phuket in December 2008 after the airport closure where business was dead after tourists’ cancellations. I talked to a lot of Phuket shopowners because everywhere we went was very quiet. I can tell you that the majority of shopowners there were very angry at the Queen. They believed that the Queen ordered the airport closure, and she should be blamed for the impact these protests had to their businesses. A few of them told us clearly that “Phuket had become a ghost town because of the ‘fat b*tch’ (E-Ouan อีอ้วน).

Neo 99, I believe you are one of those people who still listen to Thai official media and have not yet really looked at the evidence from the other side. The first place you should go to is youtube. There are lots of clips showing soldiers firing the Red Shirts from the Skytrain’s railway. This seems to contradict your claim that the soldiers were attacked and had no choice but to defend themselves. I fail to see how shooting people from such distance can be regarded as a self defence.

No, I don’t think that everyone wants to get rid of the monarchy. My little trip didn’t change my view that most Thais want the monarchy, it just made me realize that there is a bit more diversity of opinion up there.

You sound like a Thai person who was simply born in the US just like Bumiphol. We don’t bow to kings; we bow to the Constitution. Our Preamble begins “We the people” and we believe in government “of the people, by the people, for the people” and that “all men are created equal.”

Where does the this fellow American Bumiphol embody any of these values?

What’s interesting is that his father Prince Mahidol, spent a considerable amount of time in the US studying medicine and reportedly had “more radical ideas about democracy” like universal suffrage and the princes of the seventh reign opposed his candidacy to succeed Prajahidpok because of it.

Your false collective reference to “the people of Bangkok” has already been refuted. Thus, I don’t have to add to that. However, I would like to expand on the issue of “indifference.”

On Songkran 2010, I wandered from one end of the UDD’s camp to the other (actually, I covered all four ends). Finally, I ended up at the intersection marked by Chulalongkorn Hospital on the one side, and Robinsons Department Store on the other. Since I was hungry, I crossed over to the department store side. It was like leaving one world, and entering an entirely different world. On the department store side, the entire Silom Road was jam packed with teenagers madly celebrating Songkran.